Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We continue to be subsidised by Westminster to the tune of around £9bn a year.

That's the 'Union Dividend'.

Hi, no it was £1,400 a year better off for everyone.

Analysis shows that every Scot will be £1,400 better off every year staying part of the UK, but how far does £1,400 go.

New financial analysis from HM Treasury shows that every one of us in Scotland will be £1,400 better off every year staying part of the UK than we would be if we voted for independence.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/12-things-that-1400-uk-dividend-could-buy

The figures came from the Treasury. And they even suggested what we could spend it all. Surely, Treasury figures are never wrong ? :eek:

9. Share a meal of fish and chips with your family every day for around 10 weeks, with a couple of portions of mushy peas thrown in.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Yes, such denials of published data are frequent, and used, I think, as a deliberate stratagem.

When convenient, Scottish Goverment figures are disbelieve, being tainted by their source (the wicked London Establishment or something). A conspiracy to hide "The Facts" has also been suggested in some of the wilder posts.

Another argument is to claim that "others" hold different views and that this means published figures can't be trusted because it's too difficult to decide.

All that builds to assertions that there is no evidence on subsidies, black holes , and so on and so forth. And apparently that garners votes from the gullible.

All that goes hand in hand with avoiding publishing anything to the contrary, with the exception of Polls of course where the fruits of deception can be trumpeted.

All blow and no action.

I think it all comes down to trust at the end of the day. Whom do Scots trust with the facts and figures that come out. And who do they feel would genuinely look after their interests better, even when the chips are down.

Westminster figures and reports regarding Scotland just aren't trusted very much these days. There may have been too much messing about with them in the past. No one is claiming there would be no problems. It's just that many see the Scottish Govt as looking after their interests better, and would do in the future. That would apply whatever is coming down the road via independence or while still in the union.

It's been that way for a long time now.

Figure 2.1 Trust in the UK and Scottish Government to act in Scotland's interests? (1999-2007, 2009-2013 % trust 'just about always'/'most of the time')


http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2014/06/3033/5

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The SNP controlled Scottish Government doesn't even dispute the figures. In fact they release the figures. So perhaps she should take it up with them.

They have to release them by law. But they don't produce all the figures within it.

GERs uses regional accounts data published by the ONS, it also uses data supplied directly by HMRC and DECC. 40% of spending isn't controlled by the Scottish Govt. It's spent on their behalf at UK level and included in GERS.

Still GERS will be out again soon. Perhaps you should keep your powder dry for then Hamish.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

Indeed.
As I read yesterday it seems to be a case of the SNP gaining control of one of the 'levers' and finding it too hot to handle.

New powers, but not new powers 'at a cost'. Seems fair enough to me. That wasn't the option put forward to voters in Sept 14 ?

The Scottish Government are not asking for any special favours. But we do demand a fair deal – one that lives up to the key principles at the heart of the Smith Commission report – and we will not sign up to a deal which will leave Scotland worse off. The UK’s pledge was new powers – not new powers at a cost...

...Unless we can get a deal that adheres to the principles of the Smith Commission, there will be no agreement and the deadline will be missed. That would leave the Scotland Bill and the new powers that are supposed to be being delivered in a constitutional limbo. We would be into uncharted territory – and the UK Government would be breaking their promise of more powers...

...Some suggested mechanisms would lock in a financial disadvantage for Scotland’s public finances, costing us potentially many billions of pounds in the years ahead, meaning that, even if Scotland grows our economy faster than the rest of the UK, we could still see our budget slashed.

I was part of the Smith Commission and can’t find that anywhere in the agreement.
I have read and re-read the famous “Vow” and cannot find the clause that reads: “Heads, the UK wins; tails, Scotland loses.”This wasn’t the Vow, it’s not Smith and we will not sign any deal which does that.

Any deal that systematically cuts Scotland’s budget would have a potentially catastrophic effect on public services and no Scottish Government worthy of the name should be prepared to sign up to such a deal.

Read more at http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/john-swinney-not-just-want-7278956#kBPZjZEUmfIGVwtf.99

Too long to quote in full. Note I use ... to show I've split up text to highlight pertinent paragraphs, not because I am a computer. Feel free to click on the link for the full text.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think it all comes down to trust at the end of the day. Whom do Scots trust with the facts and figures that come out. And who do they feel would genuinely look after their interests better, even when the chips are down.

Westminster figures and reports regarding Scotland just aren't trusted very much these days. There may have been too much messing about with them in the past. No one is claiming there would be no problems. It's just that many see the Scottish Govt as looking after their interests better, and would do in the future. That would apply whatever is coming down the road via independence or while still in the union.

It's been that way for a long time now.

Figure 2.1 Trust in the UK and Scottish Government to act in Scotland's interests? (1999-2007, 2009-2013 % trust 'just about always'/'most of the time')


http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2014/06/3033/5

it seems extraordinary that there wasn't a massive YES vote when the people of scotland were given the choice of getting rid of the English for ever

they must be more subtle thinkers than previously thought : they know where free money comes from

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

...
they must be more subtle thinkers than previously thought : they know where free money comes from

We should clarify this "free money". It's not seen purely as free money.

It's seen as free money which they are entitled to in pertuity, regardless of the difficulties of the wider national interests.

The role of the SNP is to maintain this supply of free money whilst making sure people hate the providers of the free money.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Hi, no it was £1,400 a year better off for everyone.

Better off than we would be in the case of independence, so in other words, where we are today.

And that's in essence the £9bn annual subsidy from Westminster.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

We should clarify this "free money". It's not seen purely as free money.

It's seen as free money which they are entitled to in pertuity, regardless of the difficulties of the wider national interests.

The role of the SNP is to maintain this supply of free money whilst making sure people hate the providers of the free money.

Not really. The SNP don't want any free money. And certainly not in perpetuity. That's kind of the point of campaigning for the last 80 years for independence.

They won't take the Scotland Bill as it stands though I think. It's not what was offered at the time by the sounds of it. Scottish Labour, once they've seen the details, might do better in May to join Swinney/SNP on this one. Just like they already have on Trident.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Better off than we would be in the case of independence, so in other words, where we are today.

And that's in essence the £9bn annual subsidy from Westminster.

I thought you'd say that. But it wasn't really what most people thought they meant by 'better off'. And now the Scotland Bill seems to be hovering on the brink making them worse off anyway within the UK. Worse off out of the union, worse off in. Fabulous.

Did you catch this on tv this morning ?

A top EU official has said Scotland should not have to choose between membership of the UK and the EU. European Commission vice president Kristalina Georgieva said "every effort" was being made to avoid this scenario...

...The commissioner did not want to speculate on how the EU might deal with the UK voting to leave and Scotland voting to remain.

"We make every effort for the Scottish people not to have to face a choice between Britain and the EU" she said. "So, that is not a choice that we would like to ever face."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35454450

Lets hope those face to face polls are more accurate than the online one's eh. Worrying. :eek:

January 31, 2016.

The survey of 1,735 people showed 42 percent of Britons would vote to leave the bloc compared to 38 percent who wanted to stay - a 4 percentage point gap that is the largest in favour of a British exit seen in a YouGov poll since October 2014.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-poll-idUKKCN0V90UQ

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

it seems extraordinary that there wasn't a massive YES vote when the people of scotland were given the choice of getting rid of the English for ever

they must be more subtle thinkers than previously thought : they know where free money comes from

I think that might be more down to the fact that a lot of people had trust in Labour at the time. And thought Labour would be in power. That's all changed now. No trust. No Labour in power.